Hope you won't have problems with that TE, but this will time tell. This is one of the main reasons why I didn't go into development and I am still making kites with few struts. I don't see relaunch as an issue in smaller sizes but maybe a little with larger (low wind, suction).

Fill in panels are a piece of nylon fabrics that "mimics" profile (eg struts are straight). Recently only North is (still?) using them, but were used by few brands in the past. I've used them on few kites but dropped them on new ones completely.

I could talk of ideas/intelectual rights/open source/what's wrong with the world etc for a long time but here it won't get the point. Now, some of the inventors are lucky and go into development and finally to production but some not and their ideas get stucked in the space until later they're maybe found again. To put it simple the credits from me gets the one who did/discover something first and not the one who uses those ideas or wrap them into something "else". I think that this is right if there is any justice in the world. Altho I respect that you have the courage to go into it.

To be perfectly clear I am totaly aware that upgrades of the ideas can be better than originals and I'd rather go kite with new ILE strutless than the old ones.

boardriding maui wrote:herculon - Thanks for the great news! Since I had the scale out, I grabbed the 8 just to see. 4.7 lbs / 2.13 kg. With all the news this week of brands launching strutless designs, if a weight war is waged as a result it will be critical in my opinion for riders to be aware of the huge % of weight that is now the bladder material. I think cutting corners there would be terrible mistake. I see bladder failures as a main contributor to a kite's lifespan and this was a major influence in my motivation to seek a strutless design solution so riders would have less problems with their gear. So, thinner bladder material isn't worth the tradeoff to my thinking.

BWD - I believe your question was regarding warranty, but post has gone down before I've replied. An excellent question. The simple answer is "the standard" one year material and workmanship. The more accurate answer is that my work does not fit the industry "standard". I thought to say that every part of my offering is handled directly by me but this fails to give credit to others that are involved. But from every part of its design to its sale, I take full responsibility. There will be no "Sorry Man, that's just the policy" from any individual without their heart in it. Success for me is measured by every stoked rider, and keeping them stoked. Hope that answers your question, let me know if not.

DrLightWind - Thanks for reposting. Tell me more about "flexible in-fill panels"! Did the material have flex?? If so, what was the result. Sounds fascinating!! For the relaunch, yeah, without even the wingtips up in the air very much + the weight in the canopy + the long flat section in the LE, I was just wondering how that could work. For the invert issue - YIKES! I can't comment on that kite having not been involved in its design, but can say from my own development that I've experienced how critical bridling is to reliable performance.

Gigi;) - I agree that offering an aspect ratio is totally doable. My point was that given the substantial differences in kite designs that this measure is misleading. Years ago, seemed like a standard system of projected area was going to develop for the sport, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I can't imagine a way for this to accurately account for the majority of affect to what the rider experiences anyway. A measure of a kite's cord line at center could maybe be useful information, but then opens the door to wanting camber too. But what good is all that when there's no way to even objectively test for windrange for a design. Its all subjective, and speaking just for myself, I'm cool with that. What is a bummer for me is that my work didn't make your list for "credits & ideas". I agree that development and innovation are to commended, but hoped you'd give me a shout out for the very different level of work and commitment needed to bring a new idea to production. In your defense, I guess the very title of this thread includes "in development". So "production" is off the topic.

It seems that Airush have decided that the strutless kite's main advantage is in light wind, although it could be that if it is successful and sells well they would then extend that down in sizes.

First thing to use the lightest wind is to have a kite that stays in the air? Second thing is the relaunch? I have tended to find that the lowest relaunchable wind for my Xbow is the same wind where it will sit overhead without working it. That could be a useful way to assess kites if it was a general rule.

Gigi;) - Everything I've experienced suggests that the TE is under less stresses than a conventional kite. I believe there's been plenty of time to confirm that. What makes you suggest otherwise? The same goes for light wind relaunch. Regarding the panels, I'm familiar with the designs your describing and they seem like an excellent idea to me based on what I've experienced. However, the kite DrLightWind pictured looked to me like there's something else going on. But if you're familiar with, or even designed it, then I guess you know. Thanks for the comments.

ronnie - I'd agree with all of that in a way. Mostly in that big kites are where improvements have been most needed. That wasn't my goal at the outset, but sure has been fun to adjust the plans to include it.

ronnie wrote:It seems that Airush have decided that the strutless kite's main advantage is in light wind, although it could be that if it is successful and sells well they would then extend that down in sizes.

What is funny is that everybody was questioning relaunch, stability, fluttering... of a strutless kite. All those characteristics are especially important on a light wind kite and airush decides to go strutless on a light wind kite only. To me this is another indication that the weaknesses of the concept (if any...) are not where I first thought they would be !

Like I said time will tell. I really do hope you wont have such a problems with the TE. We repaired a LOT of those problems on many other kites and when I was testing the strutless idea several years ago I saw how badly sail flaps in gusts on the beach.

Fill-Ins - Yes I've put them on few designs (check center strut)

I even did no ILE / no strut single skin kite with fill in panels in the past

another one from 10 years ago 2 strut kite

Regarding low wind - I agree that having less weight is better. There is no problem of kiting in sub 10kts with new LW kites - until you are able to have it in the air... My last one is staying solid in the air in 3,4kts and I had so much fun on snow the other day.

The real problem in sub 8kts kiting is suction of the fabrics to the water and having no canopy support can be a real PIA. Now imagine the worst case scenario in LW - deep water relaunch, when you have no anchor. Generally the best way IMO for LW deep water relaunching is the reverse relaunch line. I've use it in the past on my old C kites to relaunch it easily on the land/snow. Recently only ZEEKO kites practice this. Also what is important is having the right shaped wingtips (assuming the arc shape is the same) - here delta styled ones have an advantage compared to squared ones - meaning you will relaunch more effortlessly with delta shaped ones.

boardriding maui wrote:Gigi;) - Everything I've experienced suggests that the TE is under less stresses than a conventional kite. I believe there's been plenty of time to confirm that. What makes you suggest otherwise? The same goes for light wind relaunch. Regarding the panels, I'm familiar with the designs your describing and they seem like an excellent idea to me based on what I've experienced. However, the kite DrLightWind pictured looked to me like there's something else going on. But if you're familiar with, or even designed it, then I guess you know. Thanks for the comments.

ronnie - I'd agree with all of that in a way. Mostly in that big kites are where improvements have been most needed. That wasn't my goal at the outset, but sure has been fun to adjust the plans to include it.

boardriding maui wrote:herculon - Thanks for the great news! Since I had the scale out, I grabbed the 8 just to see. 4.7 lbs / 2.13 kg. With all the news this week of brands launching strutless designs, if a weight war is waged as a result it will be critical in my opinion for riders to be aware of the huge % of weight that is now the bladder material. I think cutting corners there would be terrible mistake. I see bladder failures as a main contributor to a kite's lifespan and this was a major influence in my motivation to seek a strutless design solution so riders would have less problems with their gear. So, thinner bladder material isn't worth the tradeoff to my thinking.

thanks for the insights, that today bladder material might limit weight-reduction. i was assuming, that still the dacron that forms the tube is the heavy stuff.

a question: if one still wanted to reduce weight further by using lighter / thinner bladder material AND lighter outer tube material, would it help to reduce the tube-diameter and use more bridle lines ?
i read that the new advance ikarus tubekite has many, cascaded bridles on the LE. that way it is much better supported and can be thinner !
now there are many tubekiters that scream "i hate those complicated bridles" and "i have a deep fear for mysterious pulleys"

but those wont be the target group for an ultra-lightweight, a little less robust, huge 19 sqm tube anyway, right ?

the target group would be kiters that have to deal with weak thermal winds, with gusty inland winds that often drop to near zero instantly in lulls, snowkiters that want to enjoy a cruise in bright sunshine on a almost nil wind day, and other kiters that usually go for an expensive flysurfer, but would rather like to fly a tube because of their much depower properties..

second question , regarding a bit relaunch:

would it help to have a mini-bridle at the trailing edge ? that could ease backward launch maybe ? similiar to the zeeko relaunch helper, but of course not attached to a non-existing strut , but just somewhere at the TE-cloth..
might this maybe even improve steering ?

You need to take in mind all the different parameters and then choose the correct diam. of the tube and normally it is better to stay in the safe. You can go with thinner ILE and more bridle but then again the kite may brake structure in some cases for instance - so a lot of +/-.

Seems a good idea regarding that mini bridle... I think something with the rigs has Slingshot on one of the model (Diesel?) and I think Genetrix had some sort of bridles in the TE. But I think both were using with the back line not separate. I don't know it is a good think or not since I'd tested only on separate line.

herculon wrote:a question: if one still wanted to reduce weight further by using lighter / thinner bladder material AND lighter outer tube material, would it help to reduce the tube-diameter and use more bridle lines ?
i read that the new advance ikarus tubekite has many, cascaded bridles on the LE. that way it is much better supported and can be thinner !
now there are many tubekiters that scream "i hate those complicated bridles" and "i have a deep fear for mysterious pulleys"

second question , regarding a bit relaunch:

would it help to have a mini-bridle at the trailing edge ? that could ease backward launch maybe ? similiar to the zeeko relaunch helper, but of course not attached to a non-existing strut , but just somewhere at the TE-cloth..
might this maybe even improve steering ?

boardriding maui wrote:DrLightWind - Thanks for reposting. Tell me more about "flexible in-fill panels"!
Did the material have flex?? If so, what was the result. Sounds fascinating!!
For the relaunch, yeah, without even the wingtips up in the air very much + the weight in the canopy + the long flat section in the LE,
I was just wondering how that could work. For the invert issue - YIKES!
I can't comment on that kite having not been involved in its design,
but can say from my own development that I've experienced how critical bridling is to reliable performance.

Gigi;) wrote:Fill in panels are a piece of nylon fabrics that "mimics" profile (eg struts are straight).
Recently only North is (still?) using them, but were used by few brands in the past.
I've used them on few kites but dropped them on new ones completely
Too flat kites needs more wind compared to more arced ones (talking of modern swept back kites) to relaunch.

Greg, There is not much really I can add to Gigi's comment he described it so well

From my experience with that 11m kite was when the wind dropped to about 13 mph,
it wasn't easy to sine the kite to get going, without any pulling power,
because that kite was just Gutless in the low end.
A lot of times it dropped to the soup in a lull; and because of the delay leg no time to retrieve.
Most of the time I couldn't relaunch it and had to rescue and it swim back to the shore
Once the kite was flying I didn't notice any flutter, the canopy and ribs with in-fill panels were tight.

Here is a test flight to show more and how impressing the hang time and boosting was in 17 knots.

Hello there. Nice looking kite and nice to see something new, exciting. One Q from me is about those horrible rips that occasionaly happens when one have a high speed impact with the water and the kite ripps from the LE all the way to the TE. Have you had any issus like this with the "no strut" design?

There is a way to remedy this and on the "no"-strut design it woul be a very easy to incooperate.